Formerly, it was extremist politicians that formulated the proposal. In the latest iteration, however, it was the Deputy Foreign Minister, the ineffable Danny Ayalon, who articulated it. As Ynet reports:
"Israeli Arabs will not lose anything by joining the Palestinian state. Instead of giving the Palestinians empty land in the Negev, we are offering them land full of residents, who will not have to leave their homes," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon in an interview to London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper published on Saturday.
Upon prompting from the reporter, Ayalon explained the philosophy behind the proposal:
When asked if he was referring to the concentration of Arab towns and villages known as the Triangle region, he said: "Yes. Why not? If the Arabs in Israel say they are proud of being Palestinian, why shouldn't they be proud of being part of the Palestinian state?
Please someone explain to Ayalon that if people who are proud of an identity had the duty to become part of the place where that identity is majoritarian, all Mormons around the world should relocate to Utah and, more to the point, all Jews around the world should emigrate to Israel. While I'm sure Ayalon would be delighted to see Argentinian Jews make aliyah en masse, I'm not so certain he would be happy with American Jews taking the same step. A Lobby-less Israel is as nightmarish a prospect as one full of returning Palestinian refugees.
By the way, I wonder what identity the Deputy FM thinks Israeli Arabs should be proud of. The country does not recognize an Israeli nationality; instead, it divides its citizens into up to six different national groups which have little in common. Hebrew could be an agglutinating factor, as is the case in other small countries like Estonia where the language defines the nation; but again, speaking the language means nothing to the State, to the point that lawmaker Ahmed Tibi, a fluent Hebrew speaker, will always be irrelevant because he's an Arab, while Avigdor Lieberman, a terrible Hebrew speaker, is the Foreign Minister.
Back on topic, what are the prospects for Ayalon's idea of disposing of Israeli Arabs? Not very bright indeed. The Arabs, plus the Ashkenazim who like to defend the fiction that Israel holds the moral high ground on blogs, constitute a solid majority that prevents (for the time being, at least) the project from bearing fruit. But if the project can't succeed, why does he wave it in the air?
When you're the majority and want to opress a minority, the easiest way is to let them know that their existence is provisional in the territory that you control. Israeli Arabs see that what was once the discourse of the most marginal elements in the society has now become mainstream; that what was once whispered is now unabashedly shouted; that the State is closing in on them with a growing arsenal of proposals to restrict their private property rights, to curtail their freedom of speech and conscience and even to "encourage" their emigration. It matters little that the projects are not enacted. The objective is that with each round of threats the Arabs will have to be thankful that the State deigned not to expel them this time.
Because this is not about ethnic cleansing; this is not about expulsion. This is about dhimmitude. This is about making sure that disposable citizens remain in that category.
36 comments:
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’ve always assumed that Lieberman was perfectly in earnest about transferring the Little Triangle and other areas with concentrations of Palestinians to the putative Palestinian state (e.g. http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/10/race-to-horizon.html). Although Livni expresses herself slightly more circumspectly with her reference to the Palestinian state satisfying all Palestinians’ ‘national aspirations’ (or words to that effect), I gathered she meant it, as well. Indeed, I still think that what just about all Zionists really want is all of Palestine with as few Palestinians as possible. If Palestine is ever partitioned, I still reckon transferring Palestinian areas within Israel Proper will be part of the land swap. But since I don’t foresee the interminable Peace Process reaching a resolution any time in the foreseeable future, I suspect you are right that for the time being, these threats serve more as a mechanism of social control than anything else.
Ibrahim:
What does 'Hija del Zion' mean? It's not 'Israel uber alles' in Dago, is it?
Nice use of the Nazi slur against Israel, Gert. You do know that's antisemitic, right? I mean unless you're stupid or you're intentionally insulting Jews by comparing them to the murderers of their grandparents. Antisemitic scum like you have no place in civilized debates about the I/P conflict.
Hija del Zion is right: the antisemitic wet dream that Israel will crumble is a fantasy. It's far more likely at this point that Israel's neighbors like Syria, Jordan and Lebanon break apart than the Zionist dream dies. In fact, we need simply wait long enough for the Arab states to fail. Soon enough there will be a Palestinian state in Jordan. We might be able to pick up some more territory -- which is rightfully ours anyway -- in Lebanon.
Anon:
"We might be able to pick up some more territory -- which is rightfully ours anyway -- in Lebanon."
More 'conquest' than 'conflict' then. See why some of us use the term 'Israel uber alles'? It's a shame you post anonymously, you'd be a G-dsend to me with regards to those Zios who deny Zionism is an expansionist project...
Mazel tov on your new lot of idiot trolls, Ibrahim. You'd think if they didin't want to be compared to nazis, they'd make an effort to eschew the Untermenschen, Lebensraun, and Mischling rhetoric!
Come on Andrew r, you know very well that 'some of my best friends are Jews' doesn't count as a defence, only swearing blind allegiance to the Zionist Entity still works (even if one is an actual antisemite). Besides, our resident Officer for 'Race' Hygiene has decided you're not Jewish anyway, so there.
It shouldn't matter of course but I'm always pleased to meet Jews who say 'not in my name'. The numbers are growing and its the only thing that brings a little hope.
Nothing racist about Zionism, oh no!
Actually, in Spanish it would be Hija de Sión, so that this person is not Hispanic, and I'm not sure about their gender either.
As for our anonymous contributor, he may have a point, although for different reasons than he cites. He suggests that Andrew may not bring up his Jewishness because he's not Jewish enough (although he doesn't make clear what proportion of chosen blood would enable him to speak). I for my part believe no one should bring up their Jewishness (whatever the percentage) to justify their anti-Zionism or any other position they may take on Jewish or Israeli related issues. This is playing into the hands of those who seek to scare us with the threat of "outing" us as antisemites.
No one should apologize for not buying into theories of wordlwide antisemitic conspiracies. Insane people should not be allowed to blackmail us just because they have a word to slur us with.
Obviously, opposing Zionism is the legitimate business of all principled antiracists and I used to have reservations about Jews organising and speaking explicitly as Jews against the racist atrocity perpetrated in our name. But I've come around to a position that recognises that Israel's claim to act on our behalf conveys a special responsibility to deny that, as Jews. The way Mike Marqusee interprets Hillel's famous maxim, from which he draws the title of his book, 'If I am not for myself, who will be for me?' is 'If I don't speak up on my own behalf, who's going to purport to represent me?'.
There is nothing "Jewish" about Zionism. It's a 19th century racist European ideology that belongs back where it came from.
So you're renouncing solidarity with five million of your fellow Jews in the name of rejecting the intellectual legacy of 19th Century Europe? (Including Marxism?) Isn't that a little eccentric? So let us imagine a guy named Chaim who was born in Tel Aviv. His parents were also born in Israel, but one set of grandparents was born in the Ukraine and one set in Morocco. What is your message for Chaim? What is your relationship to his interests and well-being?
If Chaim is Jewish, as his name suggests, and born in Tel Aviv of sabra parents and Ashkenazi grandparents, it's safe to assume that he is not suffering any form of national oppression as a member of a marginalised or ostracised group. So what I need to know about him is how he is oppressed. Is he underpaid? Subjected to harrassment at work? If he is himself the employer who is underpaying and harrassing staff, why would I have any solidarity with him at all? If it were strictly on a racial basis, then I would be joining Yitzchak among the ranks of the racists, wouldn't I?
The ADL, the CST, and rest of the antisemitism industry completely trivialise antisemitism. They assiduously count up every graffito critical of Israel as if it were some kind of threat. The number of actual racially motivated assaults against Jews in the US and Britain, or anywhere, is downright negligible. And as the CST data show, the single most significant contributing factor to an increase in allegedly antisemitic incidents is an escalation of Israel's oppression of Palestinians.
It is a joke that 99% of American Jews regard antisemitism as a problem, 56% a very serious problem. The only explanation is profound narcissism with a tendency to paranoia.
Interestingly, in Defamation, the ADL's Abe Foxman tells Yoav Shamir that he deliberately inculcates the antisemitic notion that Jews wield vast power and influence in pursuit of his own unscrupulous aims.
In contrast, in these enlightened western societies, people who 'look Muslim' or have Muslim sounding names are actually discriminated against in employment, housing, even service in shops. And of course in the 'fledgeling democracies' the US has been kind enough to establish in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Pakistan, slaughter of Muslims is routine.
If it were strictly on a racial basis, then I would be joining Yitzchak among the ranks of the racists, wouldn't I?
So the only reasons you can think of that Jews might identify with other Jews are oppression and racism? Amazing.
Make my day! What did I miss?
Make my day! What did I miss?
Purim. Daf Yomi (We just finished Bava Basra and started Sanhedrin.) Pesach (which is now a month away). The Shema. Jewish friends and family. Any other shared experience, destiny, or common ties you like. Schools, Summer camps, Ma'amad Har Sinai.
Yitzchak - I'm not against Zionism because it's anachronistic. That was only to emphasize it's not a 2000 year-old dream. Since you mention it, I think socialism is best combined with other dissident ideologies because overthrowing finance capital and seizing control of production by the workers isn't enough. I'm not even sure we can have production without exploitation. And Marxism postulates capitalism was necessary for the development of socialism. As Ward Churchill roughly put it, "I don't like any school of thought that views me as a necessary sacrifice."
Although I'm sure anti-zios are in the minority among Jews, you should know better than me the many schisms and conflicts within Judaism. I understand how people view Israel: it protects the Jewish people from annihilation and persecution. I see that as an illusion and can't sympathize with anyone who thinks an armed Jewish state is worth oppressing another people.
When the Israeli Zionists popularly decide to rectify the injustices they've committed against the Muslim, Christian and yes, non-Zionist Jewish peoples of the Levant, I'll be in solidarity. There's no reason they can't do this.
I rest my case. BTW, where did you come by the impression I was superstitious?
That was only to emphasize it's not a 2000 year-old dream.
The gathering of the dispersed of the People of Israel to the Land of Israel is certainly "a 2000 year-old dream." The Zionists tried to give that a secular meaning but with only mixed results.
Although I'm sure anti-zios are in the minority among Jews, you should know better than me the many schisms and conflicts within Judaism.
There are no "schisms" that would stop Jews from feeling enough solidarity with other Jews to support Israel for the most part, the wellbeing of the people if not the form of government or policies of the government. The Satmars and other groups are anti-Zionist, but they aren't the Neturei Karta.
When the Israeli Zionists popularly decide to rectify the injustices they've committed against the Muslim, Christian and yes, non-Zionist Jewish peoples of the Levant, I'll be in solidarity.
Israel doesn't owe anyone any apologies for the 1948 and 1967 wars and the largest other developments in the conflict. Some sort of exchange of monetary compensation is fine with me, as long as Jews who lost property are also compensated. They might be due more than the Palestinians, but who knows. Ortherwise, settling the conflict should be based on the virtue of practicality.
Yitzchak:
"There are no "schisms" that would stop Jews from feeling enough solidarity with other Jews to support Israel for the most part, the wellbeing of the people if not the form of government or policies of the government."
Hmm... Jewry seems to have a long and diverse history of dissent and resistance (well outside the NK context too) to Zionism (I've decent text on that, if you like).
Aren't you advocating a form of tribalism that can't even recognise wrongdoing by members of the tribe, merely because they're members of the tribe? If a Jew is found to be a murderer, is he less of a murderer in your eyes just because he's Jewish? Would your sister be less of a murderess (assuming it was proved to be so) because she's your sister?
As regards the 'Arab Jewish refugees', if the number of 'nearly a million' that's bandied around in the Ziosphere were anywhere near correct, Israel would probably be two or three million stronger than it is today and Mizrahi Jews might well have become be the dominant group. Also, Israel would be on the case like a rash, trying to get compensation, in reality they've quietly dropped these claims for reasons outlined here in this piece by Yehouda Shenhav. Very worth reading, IMHO.
That reminds me of the expression: '[early] Zionists don't believe in G-d but they believe G-d gave them Israel'. LOL.
Anonymous:
"= Jews are a disease + love money"
For that you'd be very deserving of a 'fuck you too!' but I'll keep it civil.
For one, Jews who were displaced in WW II or indeed from Arab countries SHOULD IMHO opinion deserve compensation.
Secondly, other nations would claim the same.
Thirdly, who wrote in this thread:
"Some sort of exchange of monetary compensation is fine with me, as long as Jews who lost property are also compensated. They might be due more than the Palestinians, but who knows. Ortherwise, settling the conflict should be based on the virtue of practicality."
You're a paranoid twit. You'd find antisemitism in an empty cookie jar, without trying too hard. Stop trolling this blog.
Ernie's identification with Judaism continues to puzzle me.
I think I could identify with a people with whose tenets or behavior I don't agree if membership in that group were not itself defined by objectionable parameters.
For instance, I hold Spanish citizenship together with my native Argentinian one, and I could conceivably identify as a Spaniard even if I don't like the way they treat Dominicans. Why? Because you become Spanish by living long enough in Spain and adopting their language and certain very general norms of behavior. True, you have to swear allegiance to a king, but it's purely formal, and once you've done so you can proceed to repudiate monarchy and no one will strip you of your citizenship.
Same thing with, say, Australian peoplehood. You may have to get used to driving on the left and spelling arse instead of ass, but you're not giving up anything basic.
In the case of the Jewish people, however, the parameters that define membership are unacceptable to a progressive mind. You're basically Jewish through genealogy, which is racist. Or else you can become a Jew by adopting their superstitions, which is submitting yourself to an absurd system of beliefs. And once you've converted, you're expected to follow those ridiculous customs, unlike genetic Jews who can be atheists if they so wish.
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never accept membership in a group that would reject me if I hadn't been born into it.
Hmm... Jewry seems to have a long and diverse history of dissent and resistance (well outside the NK context too) to Zionism (I've decent text on that, if you like).
Elmer Berger or someone like that? Spare me.
Would your sister be less of a murderess (assuming it was proved to be so) because she's your sister?
No, but it isn't bad to advocate for one's sister's interests or feel a special bond with her if she's a normal person. I don't have a sister. If you have one, I hope you're nice to her.
"Disposable citizens" is good, but "superfluous young men" (as recently coined by a zionist commentator to characterize Israel's victims) is undoubtely better. Which incedentally proves that Jewish supremacism could be justified after all, at least when referred to a certain sense of humour...
Yitzchak:
No, not Elmer Berger.
Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism by Allan C. Brownfeld. Published by the ACJ.
I don't proclaim to be an expert on the matter but found it informative.
"superfluous young men" (as recently coined by a zionist commentator to characterize Israel's victims) is undoubtely better.
The term "superfluous young men" was used by Martin Kramer to characterize the position in Gaza society of young men likely to be recruited as suicide bombers.
Published by the ACJ.
Berger was the original executive director and leading figure of the ACJ. Give me some credit for knowing what was coming.
Yitzchak:
'Superfluous young men'. Imagine Kramer had used such a term on poor African Americans from large families... Mind you, considerable support from WASPish Conservative circles wouldn't have been out of the question...
Kramer, like any old Zionist, completely disregards the causes of 'radicalisation' (because that would require being critical of Israel and that cannot be expected from a tribalist racist - and general imbecile - like Kramer.) And so he proposes pre-emptive culling. A Nazi could have thought of it. What it also proves is that racism towards Muslims/Arabs is totally socially acceptable in the Zionist discourse but we already knew that.
As regards the AJC piece, that's quite a critique you've got there. I'll have to assume that in your world Jews all think alike regarding Zionism, due to that 'Zionism gene'.
"professional victims"
85 members of my extended family were murdered 70 years ago by goyim like you and Gert, you turd.
Some grim news for you Israel-haters to start your day with!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?em
And so he proposes pre-emptive culling.
Look up the word "culling" in the dictionary.
that's quite a critique you've got there.
I didn't offer a critique. You really should work on your reading comprehension. Your comments on Kramer show that also.
Yitzchak:
You may want to learn to read inter alea a bit...
A response to Yitzchak. I sat on this longer than intended.
There are no "schisms" that would stop Jews from feeling enough solidarity with other Jews to support Israel for the most part, the wellbeing of the people if not the form of government or policies of the government.
Thing is, I don't believe the well-being of Jews is a concern of Zionism at all. And I called Zionism a European ideology for a reason: It's a proto-fascist ideology in that it's the belief of an ancient community embodied in a certain race which must reclaim its former stature. It's the Jewish nation, not my fellow Jews, I must be concerned with.
The leaders who organized the farm collectives and land purchases like Arthur Ruppin were not concerned with the well-being of their fellow Jews, per se, they were concerned with Jews who already had enough well-being to enact kibush ha'avodah (the conquest of labor). And that's putting it mildly. Their worldview incorporated the trendy social science called eugenics. They saw Orthodox, Mizrachim and Sephardim as of low "moral standing," only fit for unskilled labor and wanted the land populated with good Menschmaterial - and only the cream of this crop. Ruppin believed the best of the olim would show themselves as the biological descendants of the ancient Hebrews.
Ironically, the most dangerous task of Zionism today, settling the West Bank, is largely left to Middle Eastern and African Jews who can't afford to live anywhere in the 1949 armistice line. From all this I infer it's only due to the dearth of olim from the United States that Israel ever took in so many Jews deemed unfit by the early JNF and WZO figures. Zionism is white supremacy that had to make a few emergency adjustments along the way. Every racially-based state had to deviate somewhat.
While I don't support terrorism against Israelis, Israeli society is set up to diffuse some of that burden onto non-European Jews by forcing them to live in border towns and settlements. Mizrachim soldiers are sent into battle first. If I am concerned for the well-being of other Jews, Zionism is not a framework.
Israel doesn't owe anyone any apologies for the 1948 and 1967 wars and the largest other developments in the conflict.
Like Britain doesn't owe any apologies for its aggression against India, South Africa and Egypt and the USA doesn't owe anything for the Indian wars or the Hawaii invasion. Might makes right.
Andrew, it's good to know that you are concerned with the well being and safety of fellow Jews, not in the promotion of an 18th century European fad.
Six million Jews are now in the land. Let's deal with that reality, instead of ascribing value judgments on the naive aspirations of Jewish dreamers from the turn of the last century, or the difficult decisions made in the heat of struggle by those who made those dreams a reality.
We are all men of our times. Our generation, you and I, have a responsibility to ensure an outcome that preserves life, on all sides.
Hi…………………
This is a nice blogs I liked it very much it is really awesome thanks for the sharing.
Thanks for putting this together! This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here.
natural supplements
Post a Comment